About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3 (some duplicates have been removed)
of the arc of history and civil rights, given the fact that they're taking up both doma and prop 8. i wonder where you think roberts fits into all this. >> based on some of the other decisions he has made, i don't think he is quite as conservative as some people think. i think taking up the doma case is really important because we really need to have the defense of marriage act struck down. marriage in the states is great. but at the end of the day, there is an awful lot of benefits that come from the federal tax code, that people who get married need to enjoy if you're going to have a fair and equitable situation in society. so i think they made a big step forward here. and, you know, the court is a hard place to read. unfortunately, it's not like the election. well don't have nate silver to read every morning to tell us how it's going to turn out. but we'll all be watching closely. >> chris, there is a third issue that the justices haven't taken up yet, and that's an arizona law that bars some same-sex spouses from access to state benefits. where do we go on that? what happens to that issu
when they passed doma into law in 1996. i need to get your immediate reaction to the supreme court news this afternoon. >> well, i think it's very good for the advocates of marriage equality that the court took both of these issues up. the first issue is this question of the defense of marriage act. it was passed really in the middle of the night in 1996 and signed very reluctant lie by president clinton and e sin essentially says one state does not have to recognize the marriage equality rights another state may give. if you are married legally in the state of massachusetts and you happen to reside -- this is as a gay couple -- and you happen to reside in the state of california, the state of california does not need to recognize your massachusetts marriage, and as a result there are over 1,000 benefits that can be denied to a legally married gay couple if they happen to be living in a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage. my guess is the supreme court will declare that unconstitutional because there is a long tradition under the privileges and immunities clause of the constitutio
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)